My Ideal portfolio if I had any Money

Here is some financial advice to any surfers out there. It also is a timed proof, like a time capsule or a letter you mail to yourself, once I write this, I won't fix it at all and then there is a record of how my portfolio would have done if I would have acted with real money.

This follows the most basic theory of diversification and risk management.

So.
50%
Foreign currencies in order of importance:
Long positions:
Japanese Yen, low risk high yield 50%
Brazilian Real, low risk low yield 25%
Chinese Yuan, high risk high yield 25%

Short positions
USD, low risk (for a short) and high yield December to the end of febuary, as much as I could afford
Euro, High risk, potentially high yeild, january to march.

35%
Commodities, I don't know which ones are good so I would just do an index, oh well, (70), but I would get out of this market when it got really bullish, which it probably will or already is because its in the news, that usually signals the beginning of a bubble, so pretty quick in and out, no longer than a year.
and Gold is a low risk low yield investment (30%), hold on to this one, get out at like 2000 then get back on after a psychological check to 1860, then get out at like 2500 which will be its peak in like 15 years.


some stocks (no more than 15%) bio techs, genetic stuff, emergent market indexes, green energy (BP long term low risk high yield).

Should a Libertarian be a Capitalist?

First of all I should say that "capital" (for Marx, in general, and for this piece of writing) has a very concrete meaning: capital is a good or goods that help people accelerate the amount of wealth they have. So, a wrench, a road, or a building are very good examples, or a tunneling machine, or a shovel, or a cell phone insofar as it is used to do business. Capital, or capital goods, are the opposite of consumer goods.

The most common definition of capitalism runs something like this: A society in which the means of production are owned privately. This is not a very good definition because almost every term is too vague. One unorthodox way of defining capitalism is to see what happens in self-labled capitalist societies. 

Capitalist governments are not perfectly 'free market' as you might expect. They take such actions as subsidizing or nationalizing industries (like telephone companies or train systems) if and only if the intervention is meant ultimately to extend the enjoyment of capital investments (rails and telephone lines) to all the citizens. For this reason capitalist governments have felt it was legitimate to 

• tax and spend on "key" capital investments (such as public works), 
• control the monetary unit along the lines of Keynesian or Neo-liberal/Monetarist managed inflationism (e.g. the FED or the European Central Bank), and 
• spend excessively to raise aggregate demand in times of 'crisis' (for example stimulus packages, and bail outs)
• etc.

"Capitalism" in this historical sense is the body of reasoning that legitimizes government power that socializes the enjoyment and cost of large capital investment.

In this sense, "socialism" stops being the opposite of capitalism but merely a further degree of government power. In socialism the government has the power to intervene violently or with the threat of violence not just to extend the social enjoyment of capital investments but also to extend services that assure a varying set of privileges under the umbrella of "social justice." 

Communism, in this historical sense, means the argument and body of reasoning (now deeply shaken by historical experiments) that universal government violence is the "best" way to extend all services and goods capital or consumer to all people. 'Best' in this sense might include, 'most ethical,' and to some deeply deranged theorists even, 'most efficient.'

One step before capitalism on this hypothetical line of government violence would be called Freedom, where governments are used only to police life, liberty, and property, or, in otherwords, governments sole raison d'etre is to assure the sanctity of self-ownership in the present, past, and future.

One step before Freedom would be anarchy, where violence and the threat of violence is completely banished from society: a city with no guardians.

Why draw such a line of violence? One answer is to frame the question, which Thomas Jefferson believes is most important and most perennial political question which is "What is the legitimate role of government?" Another is to pose and define the terms of Freedom and limited government in the framework of a stragegic pragmatists, essentially the admirable and charismatic basis of President Obama's rhetoric and thinking. A third reason is to pose as a possibility that more centrally planned violence, such as capitalism, socialism and even communism (in the case of China and Vietnam) were okay plans to extend the enjoyment of industrial capital improvements to all people (as well as extend citizenship universally); however, that admitted, to raise the issue that now, at this point in human history we are coming to a time technologically, spiritually, and sociologically, when less and less violence is actually a prerequisite of the further advancement of justice and living well.

The violent organizations which were necessary and good in worse times, such as central banks, import and export tariffs, minimum wage laws, and income taxes are being out-moded, and are have now become, or will soon become a drag on future human satisfaction, both spiritually and materially. Just as slavery was outmoded economically even before its bloody abolishment by the automatic cotton picker and the industrial revolution, so too the recent economic crisis shows how Keynesian economics and central banking are more a hurting than a helping hand for the majority of people. The continued socialization of roads and highways have hidden the costs of using a car and eating trucked food and has thus been a huge contributor to global warming as well as alienating food sources from communities.  And, I predict confidently, that genetic and electronic medicine will make the social systems that now provide healthcare to many first world nations redundant and inefficient, or already have begun to do so.  

What would be best is of course a just society with as little violence as possible; whether Freedom is the best choice at this point is an open question, but a question that needs to be opened.

Free Trade: The Solution To Islamic Terrorism and Extremism

Recent Senate approval of Economic Sanctions Against Iran is another example of democracy using the wrong tools for the job. Economic sanctions will not have the same effect they had on South African Apartheid because free trade is a tenent of Islam.

Sanctions will increase the people of Iran's righteous hatred of America, and strengthen the demagogic regime in Iran. More hatred for America means strengthening the support for leaders, like the current ones, who win elections in a race to the bottom with one hotbutton issue: which candidate hates America more?

Opening trade to the whole Muslim region would be the real solution. At once it would hobble the anti-American demogogic powers in the region, support the people of those nations over the interests of their governments, and lastly, such a move would be part of a real (non-monetary, non-fiscal) solution to the American economic recession.

The Quran itself makes a very clear distinction between infidels who trade with Muslims, and those who refuse. The former are sometimes-friends, the latter, sometimes-enemies. Of course there are greate differences between the Scottish Enlightenment and Islam; nevertheless, numerous passages in the Quran have a striking resemblance to the verbiage of Adam Smith and John Locke in their radical support the natural laws surrounding commercial property and trade. In the linked article, a number of other authoritative Islamic scholars describe the free market in an Islamic context: Islam: A Free Market Religion

And not only are the elected powerful kept in power, but Iran, like any country still developing its property laws still has a somewhat oligarchical ring of families that control the vast majority of wealth, many of them having to do with natural gas and gasoline. These two points the senate singles out for direct economic sanctioning. If we hinder trade on those two points, it is simply the external equivalent of an import tariff, and, as happens with any import tariff or export subsidy, it has the effect of exploiting the people of the country more efficiently to the power of the titans of the industry involved. Moreover, those families are given incentives to support those demagogic regimes and force those regimes to grant more public money into infrastructure for the development of those elite controlled industries. For American audiences, these economic exploitative moves are not unlike the recent hike in steel tariffs and concurrent increase in federal public works under the present US administration, or in another way bank bailouts.

Economic sanctions, perhaps most often compared to those against South African Apartheid, cannot work on Muslim nations and will only serve as a paving stone the road to war and serfdom.